"They Are So Much More Capable Than What We Really Allow" Inclusive Beliefs, Practices, and Textbook Use

The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Social Studies Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jssr
“They are so much more capable than what we really allow”:

Inclusive beliefs, practices, and textbook use
Kathryn Hintz
Minot State University, 500 University Avenue West, Minot, ND 58707, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o abstract
Article history: In this qualitative study I researched how five fifth-grade teachers’ beliefs in student
Accepted 25 June 2017 capabilities influenced their curricular decision-making in daily activities with the History
Alive! textbook. Students in the classrooms had reading levels 4–5 grades above and
Keywords: below grade level and included students with mild high-incidence disabilities. For four
Social studies teachers, their strong beliefs determined what they did on a daily basis and matched the
Teacher beliefs stated goals of the History Alive! textbook. For one teacher, the relationship was less clear.
History instruction Three areas of beliefs emerged from observations and interviews, including: 1) beliefs
Textbooks about students’ capabilities in reading, 2) beliefs about students’ individual differences in
Reading instruction
learning, and 3) beliefs about students’ responsibility. Findings include when teachers
Special education
believed and could articulate strong beliefs about the capability of students to read, write,
and participate in collaborative activities, they designed classroom activities and assess-
ments so that all students could learn from and participate in social studies activities.
When teachers’ beliefs about student capabilities aligned with Teachers’ Curriculum
Institute's principles for inclusive classrooms, classroom practices reflected those beliefs
and textbooks supported their practices.
Copyright & 2017, The International Society for the Social Studies. Published by Elsevier,
Inc.
Introduction
“Teaching begins with the learner.” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011, April). This focus reflects the attention
teachers and the profession now give both to the diversity of ways in which students learn information and skills and to the
importance of environments in which children respect each other. New InTASC standards formalize this trend, urging
teachers to pay attention to patterns and differences in how students learn and to use that knowledge to design safe
learning environments for all (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011, April). This research asked about teacher beliefs
and how those beliefs shaped teachers’ use of curricular materials to help students learn. Understanding teachers’ beliefs
helps us understand how they teach and learn in the classroom (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Pajares, 1992; Smith & Lovat, 2005).
This study started with a passion for an engaging textbook, History Alive! America's Past (Bower & Lobdell, 2001) and with
questions about how fifth grade teachers used the textbook in their social studies lessons. Teachers are curricular gate-keepers
(Thornton, 1991) and make complex decisions with new curriculum, standards, and resources. Conklin (2010) proposed a
number of key characteristics of good middle school social studies teachers, including a deep understanding of the subject
matter, a clear guiding purpose, a good understanding of students, and belief in the capabilities of students (p. 51). In a
previously published article I explored elementary social studies teachers’ beliefs about social studies content and clear
E-mail address: Kathy.hintz@minotstateu.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.06.005
0885-985X/Copyright & 2017, The International Society for the Social Studies. Published by Elsevier, Inc.
Please cite this article as: Hintz, K. “They are so much more capable than what we really allow”: Inclusive beliefs,
practices, and textbook use. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.06.005i
2 K. Hintz / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
guiding purpose (Hintz, 2014). This article focuses on teachers’ beliefs about the capabilities of students. Both articles drew on
a larger study with the research question: how do teachers’ beliefs influence their daily decisions when using an innovative
textbook? This article presents findings that pertain to teachers’ 1) beliefs about students’ capabilities in reading, 2) beliefs
about students’ individual differences in learning, and 3) beliefs about students’ responsibility.
Literature
Curricular decision-making
Grant (2003) proposes one model of categorizing influences on history teachers. Grant proposes three broad categories
of these influences: personal, organizational, and policy (pp. 151–185). Personal influences include teachers’ experiences as
learners and teacher beliefs. Beliefs are based on teachers’ values and experiences, their beliefs about teaching and learning
in general, and their beliefs about the nature of history. Grant's second broad category, organizational influences, includes
two major types. The first is the “influence of teachers’ relationships with individuals and groups across a range of sites:
classroom, school, and district. These people include students, teaching colleagues, principals, and district administrators”
(Grant, 2003, p. 162). The second type of organizational influence “highlights the context of schooling. This context includes
organizational norms and structures” (Grant, 2003, p. 162). Finally, policy influences such as textbooks, curriculum stan-
dards, and state-level testing affect teachers. While these policies are mandated at a district or state level, teachers choose
how much or how little they will influence classroom practices.
This study is grounded in the idea that teachers are curricular decision-makers (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988) and serve as
curricular gatekeepers (Thornton, 1991, 2005), who make decisions in complex climates (Cornbleth, 1990, 2002). Each day
teachers make decisions about what to teach and how to teach the subject. Elementary teachers in particular are challenged
to fit math, language arts, science, social studies, and sometimes art, music, health, and physical education into their day.
The choices they make are formed by a complex array of influences that can often be identified but do not predict behavior
(Grant, 2003). Some factors exert more influence over teachers than others and, particularly with elementary teachers, may
exert more or less influence in different subjects. Personal, organizational, and policy influences constantly work together to
influence teachers’ curricular decision-making.
Teachers' beliefs about student capabilities
Teacher beliefs are difficult to study and pose challenges to researchers (Pajares, 1992), so pulling apart the influences is
especially difficult. One aspect of many models of a good teacher is belief in the capability of students to learn (Conklin,
2010; Grant, 2003) but few studies spotlight elementary teachers’ views of students’ capabilities. When secondary pre-
service and new teachers believed their students were less capable than they expected, teachers changed their beliefs about
what students could accomplish (Chant, 2001, 2002; Fehn & Koeppen, 1998; van Hover & Yeager, 2004). Three studies
highlight elementary teachers and their decision-making in response to beliefs about student capabilities. Experienced
elementary teachers who received a new textbook adjusted their use of the textbook based on their perceptions of student
capabilities (Kon, 1995). When experienced elementary teachers in a high poverty area used a primary source text that they
thought was too advanced for their students, they responded by reading the text aloud to students (Pace, 2008). Elementary
teachers responded to perceived mandates from Common Core State Standards by increasing the level of complexity of texts
and then using more whole-class reading strategies (Papola-Ellis, 2014b).
Curriculum consonance
Thornton (1988) defines curriculum consonance as “the relationships among what teachers plan to teach (the intended
curriculum), what ensues in the classroom (the operational curriculum), and what students learn (the experienced curri-
culum)” (Thornton, 1988, p. 310). Ideally, what teachers believe, what actually occurs in the classroom, and what students
learn should be the same. However, this curriculum consonance does not always occur. This study does not address the
experienced curriculum. A number of studies address the intersection of the intended curriculum, or teachers’ beliefs, and
the operational curriculum, or teachers’ practices.
Cornett (1990) describes personal practical theories as a set of beliefs derived from personal and practical experience that
are used to guide instructional decision-making. Although Sue Chase, an experienced secondary social studies teacher, had
not written down or extensively reflected on her beliefs prior to the study, the researcher found her practices matched her
beliefs. Grant (2003) profiled two secondary history teachers with very different teaching styles and beliefs who were
effective at carrying out their beliefs in their classrooms. Although the two teachers held different beliefs about the nature of
history and how students learn, both teachers exhibited curriculum consonance (Thornton, 1988) and implemented their
beliefs in their classroom practices. Much less is written about curriculum consonance in elementary teachers and there are
no studies which directly address this.
K. Hintz / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3
Textbooks and reading in elementary social studies
Little research exists on how social studies teachers use textbooks (Levstik, 2008). Haas and Laughlin (2001) found that
although 90% of elementary social studies teachers used a textbook for instruction, 45% of elementary social studies teachers
said they used it no more than once a week, indicating some variation. In interviews with fifty elementary social studies
teachers in the state of Georgia, Zhao and Hoge (2005) found that most teachers used “textbooks as the primary resource for
teaching social studies” (pp. 218–219). Sunal and Sunal (2008) found that upper grade (4–6) social studies teachers were
more likely to “use the textbook as a curriculum guide” (p. 42) and that students most commonly read the textbooks and
filled in notes.
The only case study of elementary social studies teachers’ use of textbooks shows more complexity. Kon (1995) inter-
viewed and observed seven fifth-grade teachers and their curricular decision-making in response to a new textbook and
found two teachers used the text as their primary resource for planning their social studies instruction; two teachers used
the text as an active but not primary resource; two teachers used the text as a limited resource; and a seventh teacher began
the year using the text as a primary resource but by the end of the year relied on it less. Kon (1995) found that five factors
influenced the teachers’ curricular decision-making: teachers’ educational experiences and professional affiliations; tea-
chers’ views about the goals of social studies and how best to teach it; teachers’ evaluation of the needs and abilities of their
students; the characteristics of the teachers’ schools and classrooms; and the teachers’ daily relationships with their stu-
dents (p. 127).
Other studies suggest teachers make decisions about textbooks based on similar complex factors. The effectiveness of an
innovative middle school history textbook (Carnine, Crawford, Harniss, & Hollenbeck, 1994) was reduced when teachers did
not utilize special features of the text, and professional development on such features was recommended (Crawford &
Carnine, 2000). In a later study with the same textbook, Harniss, Caros, and Gersten (2007) observed classrooms in which
the textbook could be understood by students and documented that teachers responded with more independent and
collaborative work and less teacher-centered instruction. Pace (2008) noted teachers in wealthy districts had the resources
to purchase primary source materials and trade books to supplement the History Alive! textbooks, while teachers in districts
with lower socioeconomic status only used the primary source supplement and read it aloud to students because they
perceived the reading level as too advanced. Teachers factor time, student capabilities, resources, and administrative sup-
port into decisions about how and when to use textbooks in the elementary social studies classroom.
Challenges and strategies for students who struggle
Textbooks are regularly subject to intense criticism because they are difficult to read (Daniels & Zemelman, 2004) among
other problems. In researching elementary social studies texts Armbruster (1984) labeled texts as “inconsiderate” if they
neither promoted learning nor helped students distinguish important ideas. Texts that are “considerate” are designed to
help the reader gain information and establish relationships among concepts (Anderson & Armbruster, 1984). Despite the
push for texts to be more considerate, Berkeley, King-Sears, Hott, and Bradley-Black (2014) and Berkeley, King-Sears, Vilbas,
and Conklin (2016) found that secondary social studies texts showed only mixed improvement in readability. Although
students are more likely to recall material when they read texts that are considerate (Beck, McKeown, Sinatra, & Losterman,
1991; Loxterman, Beck, & McKeown, 1994), and students with learning disabilities demonstrated improved comprehension
when textbooks were rewritten to be more considerate (Espin, Cevasco, van den Broek, Baker, & Gersten, 2007; Harniss et
al., 2007), few studies address the differences between how teachers use considerate and inconsiderate text in social studies.
Crawford and Carnine (2000) found that teachers who use textbooks with inconsiderate text viewed reading their textbooks
as a hurdle and devoted their time to helping students decode the text, but those with considerate texts did not always
know how to structure class time when they had a considerate text.
Reading experts provide an abundance of suggestions on using good content area reading strategies (Blachowicz & Ogle,
2001; Daniels & Zemelman, 2004; Ganske & Fisher, 2010) and many suggestions for explicit teaching of reading in social
studies (Beck & McKeown, 2002; Brugar & Roberts, 2014; Fordham, Wellman, & Sandmann, 2002; Hairrell et al., 2011; Myers
& Savage, 2005; Ogle, 2010) and using information literacy in elementary social studies projects (Luke, Binkley, Marotta, &
Pirki, 2014). Many of these strategies involve a gradual release of responsibility to the student in which the teacher models
the skill, provides guided instruction of the skill, designs collaborative practice of the skill, and then allows students to
independently practice the skill (Routman, 2003). All these philosophies encourage guided or shared reading, reading with
partners, and individual reading but discourage round robin reading, defined as “the outmoded practice of calling on
students to read orally one after the other” (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 222).
Older studies such as Bean and Zigmond (1994) and Passe and Beattie (1994) found that elementary and middle school
teachers’ adjustments for students with learning disabilities varied considerably. Others (Ciullo, 2015; Ciullo, Falcomata, &
Vaughn, 2014; Dimino, 2007; Taboada Barber et al., 2015) suggested strategies for successfully helping students with
learning disabilities and different reading levels, including students learning English, construct meaning with explicit
instruction in reading strategies. De La Paz, Morales and Winston (2007) recommend strategies for helping students with
and without learning disabilities develop historical reasoning, again with explicit instruction. Williams et al. (2007)
documented that students who receive instruction in cause-effect structure and compare-contrast structure (Williams et al.,
2005) increase their comprehension. Pappas (1991, 1993) found that with teacher guidance, students could successfully use
non-fiction to inform their study of history. Levstik and Barton's (2005) work on children's thinking demonstrated that
students need teacher mediation when using fiction. These studies suggested that students who read social studies fiction
and non-fiction from the basal readers or as trade books needed additional mediation and guidance from their teachers in
order to learn key social studies concepts.
Methods and data sources
School district profile
Participants were recruited from Meadowbrook School District,1 which is located in an upper Midwestern state. Mea-
dowbrook School District is a large public district in the state. About 40% of the students receive either free or reduced lunch
assistance, and the district is about 40% non-white. Twelve elementary schools are in the district and the number of stu-
dents on free and reduced lunch varies from a low of 19% in one school, to a high of 68% in another, and school demo-
graphics range from 7% to 27% non-white. All classrooms are heterogeneous and include students with a wide range of
abilities. The five teachers who participated in this study represent four different elementary schools and their fifth-grade
classrooms reflect the diversity of the school district. The state tests students in language arts and math but not in social
studies. The district grants teachers considerable flexibility in their use of materials, methods, and time for teaching ele-
mentary subjects.
Fifth-grade students study American history and fifth-grade teachers in Meadowbrook Schools use History Alive! text-
books published by Teachers’ Curriculum Institute (TCI). At the time of the study, no other elementary grades had adopted
TCI materials. Many of the 25 to 30 fifth-grade teachers in the district participated in a three-year Teaching American
History grant to improve inquiry-based social studies instruction and the use of technology. The grant director initially
brought in History Alive! textbooks as a resource for teachers who participated in the grant to use, along with technology, to
enhance curriculum development. In conjunction with the grant, trainers from TCI provided professional development for
teachers in the grant in order to develop more inquiry-based teaching strategies. Teachers participating in the grant,
including four of the participants in this study, used the textbooks for two years and then successfully petitioned the
textbook adoption committee and the school board to adopt the TCI series for fifth grade, despite the fact that other ele-
mentary grades adopted books from a different publisher.
Textbook profile
The five fifth-grade teachers in this study all used the textbook, History Alive! America's Past (Bower & Lobdell, 2001) as
their social studies textbook. History Alive! America's Past is one of many social studies textbooks that TCI publishes for use in
kindergarten through twelfth grade. In promotional material, TCI describes their guiding rationale for elementary teaching
as, “Learning about social studies is fun. Elementary students are inherently fascinated by the world around them and are
eager to understand and be a part of that world.”(Owens & West, 2010, p. 3) Two primary features distinguish this series
from other textbooks. First, the publisher actively promotes the use of readable, considerate text in the textbook and in
printed materials (Owens & West, 2010). Most elementary classrooms have a range of five to seven grades of reading levels
(Chall, Conard, & Harris-Sharples, 1991) so teachers with traditional, difficult texts often spend their time helping students
decode reading materials (Crawford & Carnine, 2000). Teachers using this textbook series can focus on helping students
process and apply the material. Second, the publisher uses research-based methods to design the series, including
Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), Nonlinguistic Representation (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollack, 2001),
Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983), Collaborative Interaction (Cohen, 1986), and Spiral Curriculum (Bruner, 1960) (Owens
& West, 2010). All of the reading materials and supporting materials, such as suggested activities, reading notes, and
assessments, are written at the same time and designed to support these guiding principles. Hands-on, engaging activities
encourage collaboration, writing, bodily-kinesthetic experiences, discussion, social studies skills, and use of visual repre-
sentation (Owens & West, 2010).
Teachers in this study used the 2001 edition of History Alive! America's Past (Bower & Lobdell, 2001). A sample lesson on
the Revolutionary War illustrates how a unit is designed. This lesson emphasizes bodily-kinesthetic activities and begins
with students participating in a motivational activity: a tug-of-war in which the teacher keeps changing the rules. Initially,
students think the red (British) team will win, yet the blue (Continental) team wins because of higher motivation, help from
the white team (France), and geographical advantages. Students then view paintings from the Revolutionary War and read
the introductory section of the text that describes the advantages and disadvantages both sides have. A drawing of the tug-
of-war in the text serves as the graphic organizer for the comprehension notes that students complete as they read the
chapter. The critical thinking activity asks students to design a commemorative marker that conveys four factors that
allowed the American colonists to win the Revolutionary War. Finally, the assessment includes matching questions covering
vocabulary and multiple-choice questions related to the main ideas. The test also has a section labeled “Using Your
1
School, student, and teacher names are pseudonyms.
Intelligences” with a drawing of the tug-of-war, and students explain how the figures in the image represent the partici-
pants in the Revolutionary War.
Participant selection
To study the relationship among teacher beliefs, textbook materials, and classroom practice, I used a collective case study
method in which the researcher uses multiple cases to study an issue (Stake, 1995). All fifth-grade teachers from the
Meadowbrook School District were invited to participate through a letter, and one participant (Martha) volunteered this
way. The Teaching American History grant coordinator recommended teachers who had participated in the grant, and I
found the remaining teachers through recommendations of other participants in the study. Before beginning the study, I had
never met any teachers from the district or the grant director. The grant and TCI training concluded two years before the
study began and I had no involvement with the grant. Creswell (2007) suggests no more than four or five participants in a
case study and I followed this advice.
Teacher profiles
Jennifer is certified in special education and elementary education and has taught in special education and upper ele-
mentary classrooms in the Meadowbrook District for the past 20 years (see Appendix A: Characteristics of Teachers). As a
fifth-grade teacher, she participated in a pilot study on her use of History Alive! Jennifer then moved to fourth grade for the
2008–2009 school year, and during the 2009–2010 school year she moved to an administration support and technology
support position. She has a master's degree and an educational specialist degree, and was a Teaching American History grant
participant.
Amy is certified in elementary education and math and received her master's degree in a resident teacher program. She
was subsequently hired by the district in 1997 and taught first grade her first year. She has taught fifth grade since 1998 and
participated in the Teaching American History grant training.
Kelly is certified in elementary education and also participated in a resident teacher program in which she earned her
master's degree. She has taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at two different schools in the district. During the interviews
and observations, Kelly was teaching fifth grade for the second year. She participated as a member of the social studies
textbook committee when the Teaching American History grant participants argued for the adoption of History Alive! Kelly
was teaching fourth grade at the time so she participated in some but not all aspects of the Teaching American History grant
workshops because it was restricted to American history teachers.
Jane is certified in elementary education and has a kindergarten endorsement. She has more than 60 hours of profes-
sional development work. Jane has primarily taught in the upper grades but has also taught first grade. She taught in
another district for one year before teaching at a local military base for 15–16 years, and since that time has taught in the
Meadowbrook District for more than twenty years. Jane participated in the Teaching American History grant training.
Martha graduated from college in the early 1980s and has elementary education certification. For 17 years, she stayed
home with her children and worked as a substitute. In 1997, when Martha thought her children were old enough, she took a
job as a paraprofessional in order to learn about current methods. Martha worked for two years as a paraprofessional and
then got a job teaching at her current school. She taught 12 years in fifth grade, with one of those years in a fourth/fifth
combination classroom. In 2004, she completed a master's program. Martha participated in the first two years of the grant
but explained that she did not participate in the third year because she still had children at home and could not travel
around the state.
Obvious similarities exist among these five teachers. All five teachers are white women who have been teaching in one
school district for many years. They actively sought professional development opportunities and/or leadership roles in social
studies in their district. Four of them have master's degrees and the other, Jane, continually took classes to keep updated
with the profession. These five teachers represent typical profiles of elementary teachers with regard to their race, gender,
years of experience, and degrees (Haas & Laughlin, 2001; VanFossen, 2005). Like many elementary social studies teachers,
they used a textbook for social studies instruction (Finkelstein, Nielsen, & Switzer, 1993; Haas & Laughlin, 2001) and used
the textbook to structure their curriculum (Goodlad, 1984; McCutcheon, 1981, 1982; Zhao & Hoge, 2005). Unlike many
elementary social studies teachers portrayed in research (Goodlad, 1984; Haas & Laughlin, 2001; VanFossen, 2005; Zhao &
Hoge, 2005), all five teachers expressed enthusiasm about teaching social studies and the textbook.
Data collection
Consistent with a case study approach (Stake, 1995), I collected data through observations and interviews. I observed
each participant teaching with the History Alive! textbook five times. I recruited Martha and Jennifer first and observed them
in the spring of 2009 as part of a pilot study. Observations of Jane and Kelly occurred in fall of 2009. Observations of Amy
started in the fall of 2009 and continued in the spring of 2010 after Amy's student teacher had completed her work.
Observations ranged from 30 to 90 min, depending on how long the social studies lesson lasted. In all of the classroom
observations, I took detailed field notes and transcribed them immediately after each observation (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw,
1995). Data collection is a balance of the practical and the ideal (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Merriam, 1991), and in an effort
to include a variety of participants, I could only observe each participant five times. Because these teachers developed
lessons from suggestions in the textbook, by the final observations, I achieved saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and could
predict patterns of how teachers modified lessons.
Each participant was interviewed twice and each interview lasted from 25–60 min, with the exception of Martha. Martha
did not always respond directly to questions and frequently digressed into stories about students and other classroom-
related topics. Consequently, I needed three interviews and two e-mail exchanges in order for her to answer the same
questions as the other participants. Interviews occurred at each teacher's school either during the teacher's preparation
period or after school. The first interviews occurred after at least one classroom observation, and I focused on the teachers’
education, teaching history, experiences with the textbook, practices in modification of lessons, and beliefs about social
studies. The second interviews occurred after all observations had been completed and related to beliefs about reading,
issues in teaching and learning, and issues concerning belief and practice. During the interviews, I asked questions related to
my classroom observations. I transcribed all interviews (see Appendix B for a list of interview questions).
Data analysis
Creswell (2007) describes the data analysis process as a spiral of collection and analysis or a constant comparative
method of data analysis (Merriam, 1998), and this accurately describes the process I employed. I analyzed data from an
interpretivist stance, which emphasizes that people make meaning in multiple ways (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). Over a
period of one year, I coded all interviews and observations using inductive and deductive coding to discover patterns about
the influences of teachers’ beliefs on their practices with the textbook. Initially I looked at two participants, Jennifer and
Martha, and noted patterns in my observations and first interviews. Maxwell (2005) suggests that data collection strategies
in even the most carefully designed study will need focusing and revision, and analyzing the data for these first two
participants helped develop questions for the second round of interviews. I compared my list of initial codes with the
subsequent sets, constantly looking for matches and correlations following the suggestions of Glesne (2006). I printed my
five observations of Jennifer's classroom and Martha's classroom, as well as their initial interviews, and coded them line-by-
line, writing notes in the margins (Emerson et al., 1995).
In coding this data, I noted three areas in which Jennifer and Martha differed. First, from classroom observations, I noted
that their practices in having students read the textbook differed. Second, in their interviews, they expressed different views
on what students should learn in social studies. Finally, I noted from classroom observations and interviews that the two
teachers used distinct ways to accommodate differences in students. In examining these three issues, I also noted that
Jennifer's practices aligned with her beliefs, while Martha's observed practices sometimes diverged from her stated beliefs.
This prompted me to wonder about alignment between belief and practice. This preliminary analysis helped me formulate
questions for the second round of interviews that focused on beliefs that teachers had about reading and learning, and about
whether teachers felt that they could implement their beliefs in the classroom. Qualitative research scholars (Creswell,
2007; Glesne, 2006) recommend pilot testing questions and revising them. Maxwell (2005) suggests that data collection
strategies in even the most carefully designed study would need focusing and revision, and the first round of analysis
assisted me in that process.
When I collected data from all five subjects during the subsequent school year, I again printed the interviews and field
notes and coded them by hand, making notes in the margins and writing identity memos throughout the process (Emerson
et al., 1995). I compared my list of initial codes with the subsequent sets, constantly looking for matches and correlations
following the suggestions of Glesne (2006). I grouped similar codes into a list of nine categories, re-read all of the field
observations and interviews, and labeled relevant data with one or more of these nine categories. The nine categories were:
reading beliefs and practices; learning beliefs and practices; social studies beliefs and practices; accommodating differences/
Differentiated Instruction/Multiple Intelligences; professional development/education; classroom management/behavior/
expectations/class culture; vocabulary development; extending beyond the textbook/deviations from the book/modifying
lessons/technology; and teacher collaboration. I discovered that the nine categories were too broad for effectively locating
important information so I expanded the list to 25 categories and re-read the data. I compared and contrasted the list of 25
categories and the initial list of nine categories, looking again for relationships (Glesne, 2006). I eliminated some categories
for lack of evidence. I settled on three conceptual categories: (a) beliefs about social studies, (b) beliefs about learning, and
(c) correlation of belief and practice. This paper focuses only on beliefs about learning and issues of belief and practice
correlation. I reviewed relevant literature, constantly comparing existent literature to my data. Once I had written the
review of literature, I changed the conceptual categories to beliefs about learning and correlation of belief and practice, or,
using a term in the literature, curriculum consonance (Thornton, 1988).
Results
Previous studies (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Grant, 2003; Kon, 1994, 1995) show that teachers make decisions about what
happens in the classroom based on their beliefs about students’ capabilities. For four teachers in this study, their strongly
held beliefs shaped their instruction so as to help students succeed and matched the stated goals of the History Alive!
textbook. For one teacher, Martha, the relationship was less clear. Three intertwined areas of beliefs about student learning
emerged from observations and interviews with these teachers, including: 1) beliefs about students’ capabilities in reading,
2) beliefs about students’ individual differences in learning, and 3) beliefs about students’ responsibility. See Appendix C:
Teacher Beliefs for a chart on teachers’ beliefs.
Beliefs about capabilities in reading
Curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies in reading

In explaining their rationale and beliefs about reading, Jane, Jennifer, Kelly and Amy, gave remarkably similar statements
which affirmed the complexity of reading abilities in their fifth grade classrooms and emphasized the need to continue
teaching and improving reading skills. Kelly said,
There's a wide range of reading ability as well as reading interest in fifth grade. And just because kids are good readers
doesn’t mean that they are interested in reading. And just because a child in fifth grade might struggle with reading
doesn’t necessarily guarantee that they don’t like reading either. So I think that it's important to expose them to
different genres and promote a life-long love of reading, to learn to read for enjoyment, but also to read because you
want to learn to read about other things. And then of course the only way that you can do that is to keep teaching
reading skills. I think they have to be introduced to that in a lot of different ways, like through read aloud and small
group instruction, whole group instruction, tie it with writing, [and] tie it with other curriculum.
All four teachers described the variety of abilities, developmental levels, and interests of their students. Teachers wanted
to focus on developing skills and strategies of students in reading and particularly respond to each student's needs to help
students improve. Teachers knew they needed to teach in different ways to reach different students. Amy added that
students need to have choices about what they read and Jane added that she wanted students to read out loud to practice
expression.
These four praised the History Alive! textbook for the ease with which students could read it. Kelly described her previous
social studies book as “all good information but too much text. They couldn’t weed through all of that and then try to find
out what the main idea was when they got to the end. They were just lost. So I tried to do more guided or whole group
[reading].” With previous social studies textbooks, all four teachers reported they used whole group instruction and fewer
engaging activities because they felt they needed to help the students interpret the text. The reading level and amount of
content proved too difficult for most students. In contrast, all four found the History Alive! textbook much more friendly for
readers. Jennifer described it as “digestible,” “written in a way that they understand it,” and “nice bits of information that are
relevant to kids.” This corresponds to the TCI Approach, which promotes the feature of Considerate Text in its textbooks.
Considerate Text is defined as “carefully structured reading materials [that] enable[s] students at all levels to understand
what they read” (Owens & West, 2010, p. 5). All four of the teachers recognized this feature in the book.
In response to this accessible reading level, Jennifer, Amy, Jane, and Kelly used different strategies to read the book
depending on the section. Sometimes students read chorally, sometimes the teacher read the passage, sometimes the
students read with partners, and sometimes the students read individually. When students in all four of these rooms read
with partners or individually, they read at desks, sprawled on the floor, out in the hall, sitting on pillows or special chairs, or
at a table in back of the room. For students with low reading levels, another student, a paraprofessional, or a special
education teacher read the text or students listened to recordings. In Amy's class toward the end of the school year, a group
of four students divided up six paragraphs by giving two paragraphs to the students who wanted to read more. A boy
struggled to read most of the words in his paragraph and the girl next to him read many of the words for him. When he
finished, she said, “That was a really good job.” When I asked Amy about it she said, “They just kind of decide where they …
read. It's who feels comfortable…. Kids know [the boy] works pretty hard to do what he can, so there's an encouragement
factor there.” It was clear from observations in these four classrooms that students found ways to divide up the reading,
accommodate students who struggled, and create a supportive environment.
Freeing their time from reading and deciphering the textbook aloud gave teachers time to do engaging activities that
they felt reinforced social studies concepts. Jane commented,
But History Alive!, the actual textbook of course, is a lot thinner, but that's good because that does force you to go
beyond that textbook and have time for all those other activities that are the most important concept. And so if you’re
sitting there with a bit fat textbook, most teachers think that it all has to be read and discussed and tested then there
just literally is not time for the learning activities that are going to help kids remember what it's all about.
In classroom observations I saw Jane, Jennifer, Amy, and Kelly review instructions with students and then send them to
work with a partner on a task such as reading the text, filling out comprehension activities (called Reading Notes), planning
a presentation or poster, or analyzing an artifact. In one observation in September, Kelly explicitly taught them how to
decide whether what they wrote was correct or needed additional information on the Reading Notes. This corresponds with
TCI's statement on how reading expository texts should be done in four stages: “previewing the content, reading, taking
notes and processing the content or reviewing and applying what has been learned” (Owens & West, 2010, p. 5). All
activities in Kelly, Jane, Amy, and Jennifer's rooms fit into these categories and aligned with the statements by the authors of
History Alive!.
Lack of curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies in reading

Martha, however, provided an interesting contrast in philosophy and practice, struggling to articulate her philosophy of
reading and using reading methods from her previous social studies textbook. When asked her to describe her beliefs about
reading Martha said that fifth graders needed to learn decoding, comprehending, and inferring skills and also how to use a
textbook on their own. She commented, “The hardest thing for fifth graders is reading the textbook” and students “don’t
know how to tear apart a text and find answers.” Students sat at their desks and read out loud with an ordered list of
students. Students read between one and three sentences and then Martha would either ask a question or make a comment
about the content or a vocabulary word. Occasionally she would read a few sentences of the text out loud or have students
read a sentence or two chorally and then the class filled out the Reading Notes together. When I asked Martha about
whether she graded these Reading Notes, she said that the class did them together because she “wanted (them) to have
something good to study out of.” All five observations were in the last quarter of the year and in none of the lessons did I see
students reading or filling out Reading Notes on their own. To gradually release responsibility, teachers model the behavior,
provide guided practice, practice the skill, provide feedback and then assess the skill (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Routman,
2003). However, there was no evidence of teaching students the strategies she mentioned nor was there any evidence of
allowing them to practice the skill of using the textbook on their own.
Although Martha did not discuss the more accessible reading level of the History Alive! book compared to her previous
book, which all four other teachers found to be one of the biggest advantages, she admired the textbook and accompanying
materials for their activities. In response to a question comparing the two books she responded, “there was just so much
reading….With History Alive! too, you read a bit but it's not all about reading. It's taking their other smarts too and putting
that [together], and then they get excited.” Four of the five observations involved round robin reading and filling out Reading
Notes as a class. Martha used class time to help students with these tasks but did not provide the opportunity in either small
groups or through individual practice. Because she did not acknowledge the publisher's different philosophies she had much
less time to take advantage of TCI's Considerate Text and “processing the content or reviewing and applying what has been
learned” (Owens & West, 2010, p. 5). Martha retained practices used with previous complicated texts and did not adjust how
students read the History Alive! textbook to accommodate a new textbook that was closer to students’ reading levels.
Beliefs about individual differences in learning
Curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies for individual differences

When asked about their beliefs about learning, Amy, Kelly, Jennifer, and Jane offered similar answers that acknowledged
the complexity of cognitive and emotional backgrounds of their students and the teacher's role in shaping the classroom
environment to fit the students’ needs. For example, Jennifer described her beliefs about learning as
I just know that each student comes to me with their own footprint, so that they have their own readiness when it
comes to academics [and] their own background knowledge and experiences. Developmentally, we know they’re
different. And certainly different in their interest areas. Of course they come with gender differences. And it's my job
as a teacher to know the students so I know how to deliver the curriculum to their target.
This highly important theme of knowing and respecting students’ differences yet conveying high expectations ran
through all the interviews and observations.
Jane, Jennifer, Kelly, and Amy also expressed high expectations for students and, regardless of their differences, expected
students to do high quality work. Jane said, “I firmly believe that all fifth graders can learn. They’re all learners. And the
more that you expect, the more that you get.” Amy said, “They’re so much more capable than what we really allow them to
do.” In their daily activities, the four teachers insured all students could participate in the activities no matter what their
ability levels. Kelly described a boy with low reading level who often worked with a partner to fill out the Reading Notes.
The partner read the question and the boy answered it. The partner subsequently located the answer in the book to confirm
it and then they wrote their answers on the Reading Notes. As Kelly said, “And [the boy with the low reading ability] can
usually relate it to about five other concepts that he is learning in his life too. So he's not a hard kid as far as that. He just
can’t do the reading part of it.” All four teachers had strategies to help students with reading difficulties succeed.
Although the four teaches described and often pointed out students with challenges to me, in classroom observations I
saw none of them singled out or treated any differently than other students. Jennifer shared profiles of students including a
highly distractible boy whose parents thought he did not need medication; a boy with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder;
students with low reading levels; students on Individualized Education Plans for high-incidence disabilities; a boy who was
struggling for attention and in love with a girl in the class; and a girl with a tumultuous home life and severe emotional
disabilities. Regardless of their background, however, all the students participated in the social studies activities and it was
difficult to distinguish them from other students. Overall, teachers’ goals for students with disabilities aligned with goals for
all students in the class and teachers included students in all activities to help them learn.
In their classrooms Kelly, Amy, Jennifer, and Jane redesigned or differentiated lessons to align with their students’ needs
but still expected the same content knowledge. Jennifer explained how one of the History Alive! lessons suggested students
perform a debate, but one year she had three students with emotional disabilities whom she believed would not do well
with a debate format so she changed the project into a series of choices for students to both show and to tell information
from the chapter. Amy wanted the students to read a chapter book, Shades of Gray (Reeder, 1989), to provide additional
background information for their unit on the Civil War. Students in the highest-level reading group read it individually, but
the lower level reading groups read it as a read-aloud so they too could get the content. All four teachers carefully modified
History Alive! lessons so their particular students could be successful.
When it came time for the end of unit assessments, teachers in these four classes expected students to participate and to
learn the same material. When students did projects, all students used the same rubric. All students completed the same
test. Some students had tests read to them, but they were expected to know the same information. As Kelly said, “Even the
tests are not tricky. It's not wading through the how good of a test taker you are. It's right there.” Amy, Kelly, and Jane
primarily used the tests provided with the History Alive! textbook. Jennifer made her own tests using multiple-choice
questions from the History Alive! test, a blank map to label states, and vocabulary words with instructions for students to
draw pictures and describe what they learned, a concept that drew on the emphasis of multiple intelligences from the
textbook.
Amy, Kelly, Jennifer, and Jane's beliefs and practices about individual differences aligned with the textbook company's
stated views. In these statements the four teachers match TCI's philosophy, “All students can learn. Everyone can learn if
lessons spiral from easier ideas to harder ideas and students learn harder ideas by discovering them in a step by step way”
(Owens & West, 2010, p. 123). The guiding philosophies of Multiple Intelligences, Cooperative Interaction, Spiral Curriculum,
Understanding by Design and Nonlinguistic Representation, all emphasize the idea that all students can learn when
instruction is done in different ways and is scaffolded to individual needs. These four teachers’ philosophies were similar to
TCI's stated philosophies, and, in their classroom practices and assessments, they expected all students to learn the infor-
mation, participate in activities, and be assessed in the same way.
Lack of curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies for individual differences

Martha had difficulty articulating her beliefs about learning and her classroom practices assumed that students with
disabilities could not learn the same material. When I asked Martha to summarize her beliefs about learning, she responded
over the course of the second interview with a wide variety of phrases including “hold the bar high,” “the learning
environment has to be safe for [students] to ask [questions],” “hold [the students] responsible…and empower them to do
everything they can on a fifth grade level,” “participation is huge” and “mixing up the environment.” The range of topics and
use of catchy educational terms indicated that she had not thought about, or at least did not regularly articulate, her own
beliefs about learning. On the topic of students at-risk, she said, “I try not to focus on them. But if I can just plant a seed, and
be one person in their fifth grade life, that's an adult, that's not their family, that says ‘you can do it.’” In an email Martha
wrote that she particularly liked the textbook because “the multiple intelligences are used in each lesson. Therefore each
student (whatever cognitive ability) can relate and participate, learn, record, and retain information, using ‘their’ best way of
learning.” In Martha's first interview, she presented a different view of accommodating differences, saying that she believed
in inclusion, but perceived difficultly in someone significantly below grade level participating in the class.
Martha's comments about not knowing how to integrate students with challenges into the classroom shaped her
implementation of social studies activities. Instead of reading the text, Sharon, who read at a kindergarten reading level,
searched the internet for pictures on a topic and showed the pictures to Martha. Martha particularly liked these projects and
called them “lifelong lessons” and “a good way for the student to participate in class.” In one classroom observation, a
student asked for a picture of a cotton gin and Martha lamented Sharon's absence, saying, “Sharon, where are you when we
need you?” In another classroom observation, students completed Reading Notes as a class and then most of the students
colored in the pictures of black and white outlines of artifacts (e.g., a canoe, a harvesting tool, deerskin leggings). Martha
reported that for students with “special needs”, she photocopied the drawings and then had students cut them out and glue
them into their notebook. As she commented, “Just give ‘em a copy so we can move along.” Similarly, when Martha gave
textbook-provided tests, all students took the test, but for some students she provided notes and an answer key to study. For
students who struggled with reading, Martha reduced the number of multiple-choice answers, reworded the answers to
limit the answers to two or three words, or found pictures to help students because “they couldn’t do the tests.” While these
modifications for tests conform to guidelines for helping students who struggle (Minarik & Lintner, 2016), other teaches
found them unnecessary because of the interactive activities. Martha assumed that students with low reading levels could
not be expected to do the same work or learn the same content as other students.
Although Martha praised the textbook for its emphasis on multiple intelligences and allowing all students to participate,
her classroom practices revealed a belief that allowing students with special needs to color or even draw the artifacts would
consume too much class time. This view is fundamentally at odds with the approach of History Alive! TCI's description of
Marzano's Nonlinguistic Representation is that “we think and remember better when we store information in both linguistic
and nonlinguistic forms” (Owens & West, 2010, p. 4). Having students who struggle with reading skip the nonlinguistic form
does not take advantage of the aspects of the textbook that are designed for such students. Despite having the whole class
read the textbook and complete the Reading Notes together to insure that everyone understood the content, Martha
modified her expectations for the content knowledge for students with disabilities by changing in-class activities and
written assessments for these students. Fundamentally she did not agree with TCI's statement that “all students can learn
any subject if lessons spiral from easier ideas to harder ideas and harder ideas are discovered step by step” (Owens & West,
2010, p. 123).
Beliefs about student responsibility
Curriculum consonance in student responsibility

Key to a smooth social studies classroom with lots of collaboration is the ability for students to learn how to be
responsible for their actions and develop the skills of working independently and collaboratively. Jennifer, Amy, Jane, and
Kelly explicitly taught and modeled the behavior they expected and handled off-task behavior quickly and most of the
students focused on social studies for the time expected. Teachers had established routines for clearing desks, listening to
directions, and preparing for collaborative work. For example, during the second week of school Kelly explicitly taught
students collaboration skills, reminding students to go at the same pace and providing strategies for students who worked
faster or slower. She asked, “If you and your partner are stuck, what could your group do?” A student replied, “skip [the
question] and go on.” Once students started working, she walked around the room and asked them if they had skipped
questions while they were waiting for her. When students said yes, Kelly complimented them. At the end of the lesson, she
asked each group what they thought made their group work so well and students responded by saying they knew the
answers or they kept working while waiting. A group that went into the hallway did not finish and she suggested, “So
working in here would probably be better.” Clearly students in Kelly's classroom that day learned about the social studies
content as well as how groups collaborate.
During more teacher-centered activities, Kelly, Jane, Amy, and Jennifer complimented on-task behaviors and dealt quickly
with students who were not paying attention. When students worked individually or in groups in these classes, students
scattered around the room to tables, desks already arranged in small groups, chairs, pillows, or the floor. For some lessons,
teachers played a History Alive! CD with sounds such as a recording of bubbling water for a lesson on underwater
exploration. Jennifer frequently turned on quiet instrumental music. Teachers walked from group to group and helped
students. Early in the year Amy suggested to two boys that they needed to sit up, saying, “I’m having a hard time because
you look like you’re napping.” She asked them some questions on the content and suggested they focus on the lesson. In
observations later in the year, however, both Amy and Jennifer were so confident in their students’ collaboration skills that
they walked out of the room and students continued working with no interruptions. Teachers prepared them for work and
then students collaborated while teachers walked around giving assistance, demonstrating the role of an “invisible teacher”
(Wineburg & Wilson, 1991). During work sessions, students in these four classrooms consistently focused on their
assignment and cooperated with others to accomplish the task.
In a particularly powerful lesson Jennifer used a class meeting to confront bullying and mean behavior. She and students
cited recent examples of inappropriate behaviors and defined good behavior. Jennifer connected these ideas to their study of
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln and read the book Have You Filled A Bucket Today? (McCloud & Messing, 2006),
emphasizing that everyone has a bucket whose purpose is to hold good feelings. When students blamed others for losing a
game in gym, they dipped into others’ bucket and recipients felt bad. Jennifer gave each student a photocopied picture of a
bucket and directed students to color it and write their name on it. She suggested they write bucket-filling messages on
water drops and students enthusiastically used 100 water drops in 15 min. The entire lesson took an hour, but for Jennifer, it
was an investment in improving a cooperative, tolerant classroom and teaching responsibility. For students, it was a
powerful lesson in citizens functioning together in a democracy.
In describing cooperative, tolerant classrooms, TCI materials include a variety of phrases including: “The class develops a
sense of community and trust,” “All students feel valued and respected,” “Classroom management is proactive and con-
sistent rather than reactive and punitive” and “Students learn to tolerate differences, respect ideas, and appreciate diversity”
(Owens & West, 2010, p. 100). In addition, TCI materials state, “Cooperative interaction increases learning. Working in groups
helps people get along with others, solve problems and accomplish goals, (and) improve their listening skills” (Owens &
West, 2010, p. 123). The lessons I observed aligned with TCI's philosophies and provided models of cooperative, tolerant
classrooms.
Lack of curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies for student responsibility

In Martha's classroom observed instructional time was teacher-centered and much of the classroom management was
reactive. Desks had books and supplies on them, so during lessons she frequently told students to stop fiddling with the
items or to redirect attention back to the reading. In one twenty-minute reading block, she asked students to focus on the
lesson five times. Round-robin reading has been identified as a source of distracted behaviors. As Opitz, Rasinksi, and Bird
suggest, “Although students are expected to follow along, they rarely do” (1998, p. 7) and this described Martha's room.
Similarly, when the class completed the Reading Notes together, Martha frequently directed students’ attention back to their
task, and once asked for their attention four times in a twenty-minute session. Though Martha said she admired Harry
Wong (Wong, Wong, & Seroyer, 2009), an advocate of teaching students procedures, toward the end of the year students still
demonstrated uncertainty about what could and could not be done in Martha's classroom. In the middle of a lesson a
student asked to go to the library to return a book and Martha said, “This is not a good time.” A student asked to get a drink
in the middle of a lesson and Martha said they could always get a drink in the classroom. In all five observations Martha's
teacher-centered classroom did not include collaborative work, although in interviews she did mention specific colla-
borative lessons that I did not observe. While TCI does not explicitly denounce teacher-centered lessons, they do emphasize
collaborative learning and a cooperative, tolerant environment that Martha appeared to have difficulty creating because of
the lack of procedures.
Discussion and conclusions
Grounding the findings in literature
My research question investigated the intertwined relationship among teachers’ beliefs about students’ capabilities in
reading, individual learning differences, and student responsibility in independent and collaborative work; classroom
practices; and stated beliefs of the History Alive! social studies textbook. Four teachers exhibited a high level of curriculum
consonance and one teacher did not.
First, when teachers believed and could articulate strong beliefs about the capability of students to read, write, and par-
ticipate in class, they designed classroom activities and assessments so that all students could learn from and participate in
social studies activities. Kelly, Amy, Jennifer, and Jane believed that all students could learn. Their explicit teaching of strategies
for reading, strategies for academic tasks, responsibility, and citizenship skills meant that they integrated all students in the
classroom seamlessly. Although only Jennifer was certified as a special education teacher, all four teachers described students
who were disabled in only their reading levels and just needed support that teachers could provide (Ruppar, Roberts, & Olson,
2015). They regularly modified assignments and assessments so everyone could learn the content. This study supports
descriptions of pre-service and practicing teachers who believe in the capabilities of students (Grant, 2003) and use knowl-
edge of their students to identify areas that challenge students and then design effective lessons that help everyone be
successful (Monte-Sano & Cochran, 2009). Ample evidence exists that students can think historically and participate actively
(Barton & Levstik, 2004; Barton, McCully, & Marks, 2004; Brophy & VanSledright, 1997; VanSledright, 2002a, 2002b), especially
students with disabilities (Espin et al., 2007; Okolo, Englert, Bouck, & Heutsche, 2007; Okolo, Ferretti, & MacArthur, 2007), and
the four teachers in this study contribute to the literature of such descriptions. Four teachers demonstrated strong curriculum
consonance (Thornton, 1988) and confirmed descriptions in literature of experienced secondary social studies teachers who
can clearly articulate their beliefs are more likely to implement them (Evans, 1990; Fickel, 2000; Goodman & Adler, 1985;
Grant, 2003; Thornton, 1988) and adds to the literature with a description of elementary social studies teaching.
Martha is a complex teacher who represents many teachers in the field. She expressed high enthusiasm for the textbook
and eagerly talked about its benefits and she was the only one who responded to the call for volunteers sent out to the
whole district. She attended the professional development in conjunction with the adoption of the textbook, highly praised
the textbook and its methods, and yet retained beliefs about the capabilities of students in all three areas of this study. Her
profile fits into studies on other professional development topics such as cooperative learning in which teachers do not
change their beliefs and then do not implement the concepts from professional development (Lee, Chew, Ng, & Hing, 1999,
April); teachers who report changes in beliefs from professional development but then do not implement changes in their
classrooms immediately (Kortecamp & Steeves, 2006); teachers who have reasons for using techniques such as round robin
reading though they often know research says the technique does not work (Ash, Kuhn, & Walpole, 2008; Opitz, Rasinski &
Bird, 1998); or teachers who misinterpret professional development (Papola-Ellis, 2014a, 2014b). Similarly, in surveys ele-
mentary social studies teachers express the desire to use engaging techniques but then report more passive practices when
they list their actual practices (Finkelstein et al., 1993; Leming, Ellington, & Schug, 2006). Previously published work on
Martha's changes in beliefs about social studies after professional development revealed mixed results (Hintz, 2014). The
disjuncture between Martha's beliefs and perceptions of herself and her observed classroom behaviors are not well-
documented and most closely resemble Schultz (1997), in which teachers perceived themselves as teacher-centered or
student-centered but actually taught in the opposite manner.
Second, when teachers’ beliefs about student capabilities aligned with Teachers’ Curriculum Institute's principles for
inclusive classrooms, classroom practices reflected those beliefs and the textbook supported their practices. Kelly, Amy, Jen-
nifer, and Jane described their previous social studies textbook as inconsiderate text (Armbruster, 1984) and confirmed
research that shows that teachers who use textbooks with inconsiderate text “viewed their primary job as overcoming the
obstacle that the textbook represents, rather than expect the text to be a tool for efficiently imparting the content, prior to
learning the material” (Crawford & Carnine, 2000, p. 411). They acknowledged that using the textbook with considerate text
allowed them time and flexibility to teach social studies in a meaningful fashion to all students and used the textbook to help
teach the skills they perceived as necessary, including academic skills like reading and social skills such as collaboration,
listening to directions, and respecting others. This study adds to the complexity of literature on how elementary teachers use
social studies textbooks in their classrooms and confirms the range of ways that elementary teachers use texts to achieve their
goals (Kon, 1995) and help students succeed, especially when they follow closely a carefully-designed, inclusive curriculum
(Crawford & Carnine, 2000; De La Paz et al., 2014; Monte-Sano, De La Paz, & Felton, 2014). Martha's inability to note the
considerate text and activities designed for all students confirms research on teachers who do not acknowledge features of
textbooks and continue to use practices associated with previous curricular materials (Crawford & Carnine, 2000).
The intersection of beliefs, practice, and curricular resources is not widely researched or easily untangled. Elementary
teachers sometimes use additional sources of information for social studies instruction, including non-fiction and fiction
trade books, but little research has been done to document how teachers use such resources (Levstik, 2008). This study adds
complexity to the descriptions of primary teachers who use basal readers to teach social studies (Boyle-Baise, Hsu, Johnson,
Serriere, & Stewart, 2008) and teachers who adjust when their textbooks are not good matches for their students’ needs
(Pace, 2008). Four teachers saw tremendous benefits in having students in special education and regular education parti-
cipate in cooperative learning groups (Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, & Vadasy, 2003); found the textbook useful in designing those
activities; and also used features of the textbook to further differentiate instruction for their students. Like other successful
teachers, they adapted the curriculum for their students in ways that stayed true to the original intentions of the curriculum
(Monte-Sano et al., 2014) and in doing so met students’ needs.
Limitations
The results of this study are limited by the fact that these five experienced elementary social studies teachers are unusual
in their enthusiasm for social studies and their textbook, in their extensive professional development, and in the flexibility
their district and state provided in how they implemented social studies instruction. Additionally, these white women
taught in schools that represented the diversity of urban schools in the region but do not necessarily represent the diversity
of elementary teachers and schools in the rest of the United States.
Areas for future research
Fundamental to the role of teachers is the belief that all students can learn. Four experienced teachers exemplified what
this looks like and sounds like in an elementary social studies classroom. In this study I focused on teachers’ beliefs about
students’ capabilities in reading, individual differences, and responsibility in the classroom and their intersection with
classroom practices and a textbook. Amy commented that students are “so much more capable than what we really allow.”
How can we encourage the core belief that all children can learn and participate in class? Future research might investigate
the paths we use to mentor, develop, or challenge such thinking in teachers. A more complex issue for future research is
how we counsel pre-service and practicing teachers who persist in assuming that students with learning challenges are
unable to think critically about complex issues in social studies.
Textbooks and curricular materials are designed to support teachers. Some are better than others, some are more
coherent than others, and there is a wide range of ways in which teachers use them. This study presents an example of
teachers whose beliefs align with curricular resources and then use these resources to build on solid foundation of good
teaching, especially for students with different needs for whom they care deeply. Their success comes from their experience
with children and their keen ability to notice how new resources differ from previous resources. The challenge for teachers
that would bear further research is two-fold: How do we help teachers sort out the dazzling array of resources? How do we
help teachers use resources in ways that insure their classrooms work for all students? It appears that without the clearly
articulated teacher belief in the capability of all students to learn, coherent curricular materials are not sufficient to address
the learning needs of diverse students.
Educational significance
The purpose of this study was to describe five experienced fifth grade teachers and the intersection of their beliefs,
practices, and a textbook. Findings from the study indicated that when teachers’ beliefs, practices, and the stated beliefs of a
textbook affirm the idea that all students can learn and participate in social studies activities, then teachers design activities
that help all students succeed in social studies. Additionally, when teachers’ beliefs about capabilities aligned with the
curricular resource, the resource supported the teachers’ practices. Most authors of resources lay out the rationale for their
particular practices, and this rationale development is a crucial piece of insuring the success of resources, especially
resources that are specifically designed to help all students in a classroom to be successful. This study affirms the powerful
influence that classroom teachers convey on a daily basis with their expectations. In adopting new textbooks or curricular
materials teachers should be aware that they may need to examine their long standing beliefs about student capabilities in
order to achieve the full benefit of the resources. When we encourage students to be “so much more capable than what we
really allow,” we help a diverse group of students grow up to exceed expectations.
Appendix A. Characteristics of teachers
Teacher Certification Teaching experience Degrees TAH Grant /HA! Training
Jennifer MR/ELED 4 years in SPED Masters – C&I Yes

16 in ELED Specialist – Ed. Leadership
Amy ELED, math 14 ELED Masters – ED Yes
Kelly ELED 17 ELED Masters – ED Some HA! but not TAH
Jane ELED, kindergarten 15-16 years on base school in ELED 60 þ hours Yes
20þ years ELED in town
Martha ELED 17 years at home Masters – C&I Yes
2 years as para
11 years ELED
Appendix B. Interview questions
Interview #1.
General/Personal Questions
1. Tell me about your educational background and certifications.
2. Tell me about where and what grade levels you have taught.
3. What have been some influential professional development books or workshops that you have read/attended?
4. When you teach social studies, what do you think is important for student to learn or be able to do?
Questions specific to History Alive!

1. How long have you been using this textbook?
2. How would you describe this textbook package to someone who is not familiar with it?
3. How did you learn about this textbook?
4. What are your reactions to this textbook?
5. What kind of training did you receive before you started using this textbook?
6. Describe how you taught social studies before using the History Alive! series.
7. Describe your first year of using the textbook.
8. Did your goals for social studies change as you used the textbook?
9. How do you assess students?
If teachers created their own assessments they often shared those with me and I asked follow up questions about those
and how students were evaluated.
10. How do you modify the textbook and activities for your particular students?
Follow up questions about specific students in the observed classrooms were used here.
11. How have students reacted to the textbook?
Follow up questions about reactions of students in observations may be added here.
12. How have parents reacted to the textbook?
13. Do you have a favorite lesson or type of lesson? What appeals to you about this lesson?
14. How do you decide how much time you will allot for particular units or lessons?
Follow up questions about observations may be included here.
15. Do you use other resources for teaching students about US history?
Interview #2 Questions
1. If someone asked you to summarize your beliefs about your students and reading what would you say?
Follow up questions about how students read the textbook in class based on my observations may be included here.
2. If someone asked you to summarize your beliefs about your students and learning what would you say?
Follow up questions about observations and particular students may be included here.
3. What would you like to do in the classroom that you can’t?
4. What prevents you from doing what you want the most?
5. I’m interested in the relationship between what teachers believe in the classroom and what they do? Do you feel like you
teach what you believe? Why or why not?
6. Do you think using History Alive! changed what you believed?
7. Does History Alive! help you carry out what you believe?
8. What else helps you carry out what you believe?
Appendix C. Teacher beliefs about reading and learning
Teacher Reading Learning
Jennifer Share and teach reading strategies. Students are developmentally dif- All kids come with different footprints and I need to deliver cur-
ferent so I need to address their needs. riculum to fit their target
Amy Students need to read at the right level so they can be successful. “If I’m the facilitator, they’re the ownership piece of it and I can
Teachers need to match instruction to students. Students need to be guide them.”
involved in choices.
Kelly There is a wide range of interests and abilities; I need to teach skills of Students learn best by making sense of their world. They need a
reading in many ways balance of individual and group work to do this.
Jane All students come with a wide variety of reading levels; they have All students learn in their own way and the more ways that I can
strategies but just need to practice; performing to practice expression present it, the greater chance I have of everybody getting it.
Martha Decoding; comprehension; interference; how to use a textbook Hold the bar high; students need to learn to ask for help and take
independently responsibility; “I want to be one person in their lives that says you
can do it.”
References
Anderson, T., & Armbruster, B. (1984). Content area textbooks. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal
readers and context texts (pp. 193–224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Armbruster, B. (1984). The problem of “inconsiderate text”. In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. M. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and
suggestions. New York: Longman.
Ash, G. E., Kuhn, M. R., & Walpole, S. (2008). Analyzing “inconsistencies” in practice: Teachers' continued use of round robin reading. Reading Writing
Quarterly, 25(1), 87–103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560802491257.
Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barton, K., McCully, A., & Marks, M. (2004). Reflecting on elementary children's understanding of history and social studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 55
(1), 70–90.
Bean, R. M., & Zigmond, N. (1994). Adapted use of social studies textbooks in elementary classrooms. Remedial Special Education, 15(4), 216.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2002). Questioning the author: Making sense of social studies. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 44–47.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., Sinatra, G., & Losterman, J. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved com-
prehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3), 251–276.
Berkeley, S., King-Sears, M. E., Hott, B. L., & Bradley-Black, K. (2014). Are history textbooks more “considerate” after 20 years? Journal of Special Education, 47
(4), 217–230, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022466912436813.
Berkeley, S., King-Sears, M. E., Vilbas, J., & Conklin, S. (2016). Textbook characteristics that support or thwart comprehension: The current state of social
studies texts. Reading Writing Quarterly, 32(3), 247–272, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.970721.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners. New York: Guilford Press.
Bower, B., & Lobdell, J. (2001). History alive! America's past. Palo Alto, CA: Teachers' Curriculum Institute.
Boyle-Baise, M., Hsu, M.-C., Johnson, S., Serriere, S. C., & Stewart, D. (2008). Putting reading first: Teaching social studies in elementary classrooms. Theory
and Research in Social Education, 36(3), 233–255.
Brophy, J. E., & VanSledright, B. (1997). Teaching and learning history in elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Brugar, K. A., & Roberts, K. (2014). Timelines: An opportunity for meeting standards through textbook reading. Social Studies, 105(5), 230–236, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00377996.2014.920288.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carnine, D., Crawford, D., Harniss, K., & Hollenbeck, K. (1994). Understanding US history volume 1-through the Civil War. Eugene, OR: Considerate Publishing.
Chall, J. S., Conard, S. S., & Harris-Sharples, S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students?: The case for easier or harder textbooks. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Chant, R.H. (2001, November). The impact of personal theorizing on beginning teaching: A case analysis of three social studies teachers. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the national council for the social studies. Washington, D.C. 〈http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/
ERICServlet?Accno¼ ED464035〉.
Chant, R. H. (2002). The impact of personal theorizing on beginning teaching: Experiences of three social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 30(4), 516–540.
Ciullo, S. (2015). Improving access to elementary school social studies instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(2), 102–109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0040059915605640.
Ciullo, S., Falcomata, T., & Vaughn, S. (2014). Teaching social studies to upper elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38
(1), 15–26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0731948713516767.
Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Conklin, H. G. (2010). Preparing for the educational black hole? Teachers' learning in two pathways into middle school social studies teaching. Theory and
Research in Social Education, 38(1), 48–79.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14.
Cornbleth, C. (1990). Curriculum in context. New York: Falmer Press.
Cornbleth, C. (2002). What constrains meaningful social studies? Social Education, 66(3), 186–190.
Cornett, J. W. (1990). Teacher thinking about curriculum and instruction: A case study of a secondary social studies teacher. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 28(3), 248–273.
Council of Chief State School Officers (2011, April). Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A
resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.
Crawford, D. B., & Carnine, D. (2000). Comparing the effects of textbooks in eighth-grade U.S. history: Does conceptual organization help? Education and
Treatment of Children, 23(4), 387–422.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches ((2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Daniels, H., & Zemelman, S. (2004). Subjects matter: Every teacher's guide to content-area reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
De La Paz, S., Felton, M., Monte-Sano, C., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., Deogracias, J. S., & Hoffman, B. P. (2014). Developing historical reading and writing with
adolescent readers: Effects on student learning. Theory Research in Social Education, 42(2), 228–274, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2014.908754.
De La Paz, S., Morales, P., & Winston, P. M. (2007). Source interpretation: Teaching students with and without LD to read and write historically. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 134–144.
Dimino, J. A. (2007). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 183–189.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Espin, C. A., Cevasco, J., van den Broek, P., Baker, S., & Gersten, R. (2007). History as narrative: The nature and quality of historical understanding for students
with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 174–182.
Evans, R. (1990). Teacher conceptions of history revisited: Ideology, curriculum, and student belief. Theory and Research in Social Education, 18(2), 101–138.
Fehn, B., & Koeppen, K. E. (1998). Intensive document-based instruction in a social studies methods course and student teachers' attitudes and practice in
subsequent field experiences. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(4), 461–484.
Fickel, L. H. (2000). Democracy is messy: Exploring the personal theories of a high school social studies teacher. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28
(3), 359–389.
Finkelstein, J. M., Nielsen, L., & Switzer, T. (1993). Primary elementary social studies instruction: A status report. Social Education, 57(2), 64–69.
Fordham, N. W., Wellman, D., & Sandmann, A. (2002). Taming the text: Engaging and supporting students in social studies readings. Social Studies, 93(4),
149–158.
Ganske, K., & Fisher, D. (2010). Comprehension across the curriculum: Perspectives and practices, K-12. New York: Guilford Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Goodman, J., & Adler, S. (1985). Becoming an elementary social studies teacher: A study of perspectives. Theory and Research in Social Education, 13(2), 1–20.
Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U.S. high school classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Haas, M. E., & Laughlin, M. A. (2001). A profile of elementary social studies teachers and their classrooms. Social Education, 65(2), 122–126.
Hairrell, A., Simmons, D., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., & Rupley, W. H. (2011). Translating vocabulary research to social studies instruction: Before,
during, and after text-reading strategies. Intervention in School Clinic, 46(4), 204–210, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451210389606.
Harniss, M. K., Caros, J., & Gersten, R. (2007). Impact of the design of U.S. history textbooks on content acquisition and academic engagement of special
education students: An experimental investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 100–110.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hintz, K. (2014). A better vision of what social studies can be”: How elementary teachers’ philosophies influence their use of the History Alive! textbook.
Theory & Research in Social Education, 42(1), 96–126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2013.876697.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning.
Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial students. Exceptional
Children, 69(3), 279–292.
Kon, J.H. (1994, March). The thud at the classroom door: Teachers' curriculum decision making in response to a new textbook. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Kon, J. H. (1995). Teachers' curricular decision making in response to a new social studies textbook. Theory and Research in Social Education, 23(2), 121–146.
Kortecamp, K., & Steeves, K. A. (2006). Evaluating professional development of American history teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(4),
484–515.
Lee, C.K.-E., Chew, J., Ng, M., & Hing, T.S. (1999, April). Teachers' use of cooperative learning in their classrooms: Case studies of four elementary school
teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.
Leming, J. S., Ellington, L., & Schug, M. (2006). The state of social studies: A national random survey of elementary and middle school social studies teachers.
Social Education, 70(5), 322–327.
Levstik, L. (2008). What happens in social studies classrooms?: Research on K-12 social studies practice. In L. Levstik, & C. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research
in social studies education (pp. 50–62). New York: Routledge.
Levstik, L., & Barton, K. (2005). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools ((3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students' comprehension of more or less coherent text.
Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 352–367.
Luke, N., Binkley, R., Marotta, N., & Pirki, M. (2014). Our North Carolina stories: Weaving standards into a fourth grade digital history project. Social Studies
and the Young Learner, 27(1), 8–12.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research ((2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollack, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. . Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach ((2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McCloud, C., & Messing, D. (2006). Have you filled a bucket today?: A guide to daily happiness for kids. Northville, MI: Ferne Press.
McCutcheon, G. (1981). Elementary school teachers' planning for social studies and other subjects. Theory and Research in Social Education, 9(1), 45–66.
McCutcheon, G. (1982, March). Textbook use in a central Ohio elementary school. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
Annual Conference, New York.
Merriam, S. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Minarik, D., & Lintner, T. (2016). Social studies and exceptional learners. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for Social Studies.
Monte-Sano, C., & Cochran, M. (2009). Attention to learners, subject, or teaching: What takes precedence as preservice candidates learn to teach historical
thinking and reading? Theory and Research in Social Education, 37(1), 101–135.
Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014). Implementing a disciplinary-literacy curriculum for US history: Learning from expert middle school
teachers in diverse classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 540–575, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.904444.
Myers, M. P., & Savage, T. (2005). Enhancing student comprehension of social studies material. Social Studies, 96(1), 18–23.
Ogle, D. (2010). Comprehension in social studies. In K. Ganske, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Comprehension across the curriculum: Perspectives and practices, K-12. New
York: Guilford Press.
Okolo, C. M., Englert, C. S., Bouck, E. C., & Heutsche, A. M. (2007). Web-Based history learning environments: Helping all students learn and like history.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 3–11.
Okolo, C. M., Ferretti, R. P., & MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Talking about history: Discussions in a middle school inclusive classroom. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 40(2), 154–165.
Opitz, M. F., Rasinski, T. V., & Bird, L. B. (1998). Good-bye round robin: Twenty-five effective oral reading strategies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Owens, S., & West, L. (2010). Social studies alive! Methods to transform elementary instruction. Palo Alto, CA: Teachers' Curriculum Institute.
Pace, J. (2008). Inequities in history-social science teaching under high-stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social
Studies Research and Practice, 3(1), 24–40.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Papola-Ellis, A. (2014a). Teaching under policy cascades: Common Core literacy and literacy instruction. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online],
10(1), 166–1187.
Papola-Ellis, A. (2014b). Text complexity: The importance of building the right staircase. Reading Horizon, 53(2), 21–39.
Pappas, C. C. (1991). Fostering full access to literacy by including information books. Language Arts, 68(6), 449–462.
Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative "primary"? Some insights from kindergarteners' pretend readings of stories and information books. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 25(1), 97–129.
Passe, J., & Beattie, J. (1994). Social studies instruction for students with mild disabilities. Remedial Special Education, 15(4), 227.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344.
Reeder, C. (1989). Shades of gray ((1st ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Routman, R. (2003). Reading essentials: The specifics you need to teach reading well. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ruppar, A., Roberts, C., & Olson, A. J. (2015). Faculty perceptions of expertise among teachers of students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and
Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 38(3), 240–253, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0888406414552331.
Schulz, R., (1997). Interpreting teacher practice: Two continuing stories. New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, D., & Lovat, T. (2005). Curriculum: Action on reflection ((4th ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Thompson.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitiative research ((2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sunal, C. S., & Sunal, D. W. (2008). Reports from the field: Elementary teacher candidates describe the teaching of social studies. International Journal of
Social Education, 22(2), 29–48.
Taboada Barber, A., Buehl, M. M., Kidd, J. K., Sturtevant, E. G., Richey Nuland, L., & Beck, J. (2015). Reading engagement in social studies: Exploring the role of
a social studies literacy intervention on reading comprehension, reading self-efficacy, and engagement in middle school students with different
language backgrounds. Reading Psychology, 36(1), 31–85, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.815140.
Thornton, S. (1988). Curriculum consonance in United States history classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(4), 308–320.
Thornton, S. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In J. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and
learning (pp. 237–248). New York: Macmillan.
Thornton, S. (2005). Teaching social studies that matters: Curriculum for active learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
van Hover, S., & Yeager, E. (2004). Challenges facing beginning history teachers: An exploratory study. International Journal of Social Education, 19(1), 8–21.
VanFossen, P. J. (2005). “Reading and math take so much of the time…”: An overview of social studies instruction in elementary classrooms in Indiana.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376–403.
VanSledright, B. (2002a). Fifth graders investigating history in the classroom: Results from a researcher-practitioner design experiment. Elementary School
Journal, 103(2), 131–160.
VanSledright, B. (2002b). In search of America's past: Learning to read history in elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design ((Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., DeSisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538–550.
Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Pollini, S., Stafford, K. B., Garcia, A., & Snyder, A. E. (2007). Teaching cause-effect text structure through social studies
content to at-risk second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 111–120.
Wineburg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1991). Models of wisdom in the teaching of history. History Teacher, 24(4), 395–412.
Wong, H. K., Wong, R. T., & Seroyer, C. (2009). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher ((New 4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong
Publications.
Zhao, Y., & Hoge, J. D. (2005). What elementary students and teachers say about social studies. Social Studies, 96(5), 216–221.

"They Are So Much More Capable Than What We Really Allow" Inclusive Beliefs, Practices, and Textbook Use

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

"They Are So Much More Capable Than What We Really Allow" Inclusive Beliefs, Practices, and Textbook Use

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Social Studies Research

“They are so much more capable than what we really allow”:

E-mail address: Kathy.hintz@minotstateu.edu

Teachers' beliefs about student capabilities

Textbooks and reading in elementary social studies

Challenges and strategies for students who struggle

Methods and data sources

School district proﬁle

Beliefs about capabilities in reading

Curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies in reading

Lack of curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies in reading

Beliefs about individual differences in learning

Curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies for individual differences

Lack of curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies for individual differences

Beliefs about student responsibility

Curriculum consonance in student responsibility

Lack of curriculum consonance in beliefs and strategies for student responsibility

Discussion and conclusions

Grounding the ﬁndings in literature

Areas for future research

Appendix A. Characteristics of teachers

Teacher Certiﬁcation Teaching experience Degrees TAH Grant /HA! Training

Jennifer MR/ELED 4 years in SPED Masters – C&I Yes

Appendix B. Interview questions

Questions speciﬁc to History Alive!

Appendix C. Teacher beliefs about reading and learning

Teacher Reading Learning

S-ar putea să vă placă și